Analysing the Adaptation of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) in Developing Countries: The Role of Big Four Affiliates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing upon a theoretical framework which combines regulatory space and regulatory capture perspectives, this paper analyses the dynamics of the ISA adaptation process in a developing country (Egypt), with an emphasis on the interactions between the local affiliates of Big Four firms, the local professional association and the national standard setter (Permanent Committee for Standards on Accounting and Auditing; PCSSA). The paper relies on data gathered from 32 semi-structured interviews with PCSSA members, the Egyptian Society of Accountants and Auditors (ESAA), government officials, senior auditors at international and local firms, and local academics; and complemented by a review of publicly available documents. Following the formal adoption of ISAs by Egypt, we question: how do the micro-processes of adaptation (the editing of standards into localised pronouncements) play out in particular jurisdictions and why do they operate in this particular way? We reveal how the ESAA, effectively controlled by Big Four affiliates, exercised a monopolising influence on the Egyptian Standards on Auditing (ESA) exposure drafts and the language translation requirements to capture the adaptation process. Empirically, our paper contributes to the literature by providing rare insights on ISA adaptation in developing countries and the use of local professional associations as surrogates (i.e. ESAA) to legitimize control by private interests. Theoretically, we also conceive of the ISA regulatory space in developing countries as a subordinated space, which runs counter to the intention of supra-national institutions to establish effective national professional and oversight bodies, and paradoxically hampers the national interest of developing countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".